TRITIUM STRIPPING BLDG. 444 IN 1987
From: lopez, Theresa·· MFG [mailto:Theresa,Lopez@mfgenv,com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 2:26 PM
To: rmeyer Jim Langstedi Little, Craig -- MFG
Subject: New table 8-2
I have significantly revised table 8-2 in response to Jim's concerns and have found a new source of info on the internet
that may be a better source for Karin to use if she would like to expand this table. From www.rfets.gov, choose history
and go to the HAER site. They have pictures of the buidings and a good history (click on "building history" under the
building number). At this point, I think everyone has sent in comments so here is the new table, until you review it again!
Theresa «Table 8-2 2006Mar21 update TKL.doc»
Notes to Jim:
They did not have any information of tritium stripping on building 444 except that it began in 1987, so I am not sure where
we can get more information; I have found no references to building 664 anywhere - any ideas? I have nol added it to the
TRITIUM PRODUCED AT ROCKY FLATS
“The decades of secrecy and cheating can mislead even well-intentioned and objectively
conducted studies, and can result in mistakes in development of the clean-up plans for Rocky
Flats. The tritium analyses reflected in the “Technical Summary Report for the Historical Public
Exposures Studies for Rocky Flats Phase II,” Risk Assessment Corporation, September
1999, are an example.
Tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen with a 12.5 year half-life that emits low energy beta
particles as it decays. Tritiated water is its most common form when found in the environment.
In the technical summary report, the dose reconstruction team estimated the dose to the public
from tritium based on the assumption that there was no tritium production at Rocky Flats. This
is what the team had been advised, and based on this information, Dr. Till, as principal
Investigator, concluded that, “Tritium was not produced at the RFP, but it has been released
accidentally from the RFP on several occasions during processing of tritium-contaminated
scrap plutonium from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory.” See, Technical Summary report, ibid.
However, the information that Rocky Flats did not produce tritium is contradicted in a 7 June
1991 interview by Special Agent Lipsky with XXXX, a chemical engineer then recently retired
from Rocky Flats after approximately 40 years. XXXX stated: “Due to the ongoing practice of
conducting Classified projects at Rocky Flats, tritium was produced and disposed of at
the plant, in the area of the 207 ponds.”
TIGER TEAM REPORT
“The quality assurance and quality control practices for radiochemistry
analyses in the Building 123 HS&E Laboratory do not conform to
generally accepted practices. Consequently, the laboratory cannot
adequately verify the validity of analytical results. Among the
deficiencies observed are:
10) The pipet calibration checks for the preparation of tritium samples are
based on the transfer of multiple aliquots to a graduated cylinder. This
is not an accurate method (RAD-36)
Page 7-9 “Assessment of Environmental Conditions at the Rocky Flats
U.S. Department of Energy Special Assignment Environmental Team
From: Mel Chew
Sent: Tuesday, August 01, 2006 2:33 PM
To: Ulsh, Brant A. (CDC/NIOSH/OD)
Cc: Bob Morris; Bryce, blsjrich, lrmeyer7@XXX, “little, Craig—MFG’
I finally got to look at your right up-. If you want to add that during loading and unloading of “materials in
birdcages”, dose rates right up against the birdcages could have been as his as a couple of hundred mr/hr. This
dose rate drops off very quickly as a relationship to where personnel are present.
Only conceivable way he could have measured a 8R/hr field , is a very large Americium can. Did not happen very often
And to add if you are standing working in a 8R/hr field you are not a very good RCTI!I
Talk with you today soon.
NUCLEAR RESIDUES REPACKING GLOVEBOX
From the Project Incendiary Iconography: The Nuclear Legacy of the Cold War
WHAT NIOSH KNEW ABOUT THORIUM STRIKES
Ulsh, Brant A. (CDC/NIOSH/OD) [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2007 5:56 AM
To: Mel ChewCc: Robert L. Morris (Home); Gene Potter; blsjrich; Robert Meyer; Craig Little; MARY FREIBERG
The attached is a crib sheet of info I have collected on the Th strikes over the past several months. Here are some things to note:
1) The big strike occurred between April 25 and May 2, 1965. Presumably this corresponds to the dates in Ken's logbook, though I don't have any dates on the
scans you sent me. This is also the strike described in (Kirchner and Freiberg, 1965- see attached for complete reference) . By the way, I don't see
Kirchner's name anywhere in the pages you sent. Was he was involved in the process? Maybe he was just the author of the report but didn't do any
hands-on work. Please ask Ken about it.
2) There was a Th strike on 8/23/65.
3) There was a U-233 project around 6/28/66 . A Th strike wasn't explicitly mentioned, but I am assuming one must have occurred with th is project?
4) There was another Th strike on 1/13/67.
5) There was another Th strike in 1976-77.
6) The document by R. L. Moment states "U-233 processing began in Building 771 where the uranyl nitrate solution was transferred to receiving tanks. Fluoride
precipitation was then used to remove the ""hot"" (highly radioactive) daughter products (primarily Th-228), and the uranium was converted to peroxide."
Did the strikes happen in 771 , or in 881? If I parse the Moment document closely, it could be interpreted to mean that the step that occurred in 771 was
the transfer of the uranyl nitrate to receiving tanks and the following steps (precipitation, or the "strike" part of the process) occurred in881 . Please verify
with Ken where the strike happened (771 or 881 ). I don't want to use air data for the wrong place.
It would be worthwhile to ask Rod if he has Ken's logbooks corresponding to the dates of the other strikes. If there is anything in them about the other strikes, we
should try to get and redact the appropriate pages.. I realize this cannot be done by Thursday, but let's set the process in motion.
Call me to discuss.
WHAT NIOSH TOLD THE BOARD ON THORIUM
Ulsh, Brant A. (CDC/NIOSH/OD)
Friday, May 25, 2007 2:28 PM
Wade, Lewis (CDC/NIOSH/OD); Elliott, Larry J. (CDC/NIOSH/OD); Neton, Jim (CDC/NIOSH/OD)
Rocky conference call
I just got off the phone with Mark Griffon , John Mauro, and Joe Fitzgerald. Here is the outcome of the call:(1) Arjun and Ron Buchanan are the principal authors
of SC&A's report, which is expected to be sent for PA review on June 1
(2) They asked three questions about thorium(a) What about additional Th strikes other than the one we considered in 1965? I told them there was one other
one January 13, 1967, but the one we considered was bounding (it was the biggest).
(b) What about other small sources? I gave them evidence that these were "laboratory sources". Mark indicated that the Board had accepted NUREG-1400 for
these types of operations. There was weak buy-in from Joe and John, but
I am not at all confident this will hold once it reaches Arjun.(c) Mg-Th alloy. They still consider this an open issue, but raised the possibility of material going to
Rocky Mountain Arsenal. I was quite surprised that they knew about this, as it is something I have been pursuing for some time now. However, I didn't
want to go public with this theory before I had an airtight case. Mark requested that I run this idea by (the worker from Dow Madison). Mark also indicated
that he would turn to me to talk about this at the Board meeting. They asked no questions about neutrons or about Bldg 881 , though I am hesitant to
draw any conclusions from that. As usual, they were vague about what their report will say. My qualitative impression is that SCA will raise questions about
thorium at least. I didn't get a chance to ask Mark about the idea of me talking at the Board meeting about changes that have been made as a result of
the WG deliberations, as Mark had to exit the call early.
Have a good weekend .
NEPTUNIUM, LANL AND ROCKY FLATS
NIOSH Evaluation Report SEC-00109, Rev. 1 08-13-12 LANL
52 of 98
Neptunium-237 was not a commonly-used radionuclide at LANL. There is,
however, evidence of periodic operations involving its use prior to 1975 and
continuing to at least 2002. Although LANL maintains the ready ability for
targeted in vitro measurements (LANL, 2008), bioassay data are generally
unavailable. In the initial (Rev. 0) SEC-00109 Evaluation Report, NIOSH
proposed that, in the absence of bioassay data, intakes of Np-237 could be
bound using co-worker data for Pu-239, as described earlier in this section. At
the time of this writing, NIOSH has been unable to satisfactorily demonstrate
that this proposed methodology would adequately bound intakes of Np-237
for unmonitored workers. NIOSH will continue to evaluate this issue for the
post-1995 period, and for purposes of performing partial dose reconstructions
for earlier years.
NEPTUNIUM MATERIAL BALANCE
Page 54, Summary of Rocky Flats Plant Waste Buried in the Subsurface Disposal Area – Edward Vejvoda April 2005
Page 54, Summary of Rocky Flats Plant Waste Buried in the Subsurface Disposal Area – Ed Vejvoda April 2005
PRODUCTION SCALE PLUTONIUM-NEPTUNIUM
SEPARATION AND RESIDUE RECOVERY AT
ROCKY FLATS PLANT
Production-Scale Plutonium-Neptunium Separation and Residue Recovery at
Rocky Flats Plant.
Rockwell International, Golden, CO. Rocky Flats Plant.
ProductType: Technical report
NTIS Order Number: DE87013420
Please select a media type!
$33.00-Print on Demand
Page Count: 6 pages
Author:L. L. Martella R. H. Guyer W.
C. Leak R. L. Thomas
An anion exchange process to recover
plutonium from plutonium - 0.5%
neptunium residues has been
investigated on a production scale.
The plutonium was effectively
recovered and separated from
neptunium using Rohm and Haas
Amberlite IRA-938 (20 to 50 mesh) ...